Case 2:22-cv-03517-JLS-MAA Document9 Filed 06/01/22 Pagelof2 Page ID #:38

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 2:22-cv-03517-JLS-MAAx Date: June 01, 2022 Title: Onni Real Estate IX, LLC v. Antonio Edwards et al Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

D. Rojas N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE

COURT

The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth below. “The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and ‘a suit commenced in a state court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.’” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Generally, where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes are “strictly construed” against removal jurisdiction. Jd.; Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, a defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013). The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2006); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67. “Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that provision, [the removing defendant] must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal courts.” Syngenta Crop Prot., 537 U.S. at

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case 2:22-cv-03517-JLS-MAA Document 9 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:22-cv-03517-JLS-MAAx Date: June 01, 2022 Title: Onni Real Estate IX, LLC v. Antonio Edwards et al

33. Failure to do so requires that the case be remanded, as “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and . . . the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). It is “elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988). From a review of the Notice of Removal and the Complaint, it is evident that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case. The Complaint does not invoke federal question jurisdiction, as it does not assert any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Moreover, the underlying action is an unlawful detainer proceeding, arising under and governed by the laws of the State of California. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case and REMANDS the matter to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 22STUD00540.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: droj

______________________________________________________________________________

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2